Bakhtiari v. Spaulding

ALIREZA BAKHTIARI, Plaintiff v. STEVEN SPAULDING, et al., Defendants

No. 1:17-cv-00016

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

November 8, 2018

(Judge Kane)

MEMORANDUM

Pro se Plaintiff Alireza Bakhtiari ("Bakhtiari"), is a former inmate previously confined at the Federal Correctional Institution Allenwood, in White Deer, Pennsylvania ("FCI-Allenwood"). (Doc. No. 24.) Bakhtiari filed this action on January 4, 2017, pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq., Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1977), 42 U.S.C. § 1985, 42 U.S.C. § 1986, and the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"). (Doc. No. 1.) The Court screened the complaint pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PLRA"), and on June 27, 2017, dismissed the complaint in part and granted Bakhtiari leave to file an amended complaint. (Doc. Nos. 19, 20.) Bakhtiari filed an amended complaint on August 8, 2017. (Doc. No. 24.)

Bakhtiari's amended complaint sets forth a total of twenty causes of action against the within-named Defendants, including FTCA claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, conspiracy, assault, battery, medical and non-medical negligence, as well as Bivens claims of conspiracy, deliberate indifference to medical needs, excessive force, failure to protect, government-created danger, retaliation, equal protection, and due process violations pertaining to events that occurred at FCI-Allenwood between November 12, 2015 and March 10, 2016. (Id.) Bakhtiari's claims relate to allegations involving his placement in the Special Housing Unit ("SHU"), denial of medications, inhumane use of ambulatory restraints, and a failure to protect him from a white supremacist inmate that Bakhtiari claims resulted in him being assaulted. (Id.) Before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss and/or, in the alternative, for summary judgment (Doc. No. 50), and Bakhtiari's motion to disqualify counsel (Doc. No. 66).¹ On May 31, 2018, observing that Defendants raised the issue of whether Bakhtiari exhausted his administrative remedies in accordance with the PLRA, the Court issued a Paladino Order informing the parties that it would consider the exhaustion issue in the context of summary judgment and by doing so, would consider matters outside the pleadings in its role as factfinder.² Defendants subsequently filed a supplemental brief. (Doc. No. 75.) Bakhtiari, however, has not filed a supplemental brief within the time prescribed by the Court. Rather, on September 25, 2018, the Court received and docketed a motion for leave to file a sur-reply.³ (Doc. No. 80.) Accordingly, the motions are ripe for disposition.

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A. Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) authorizes the Court to dismiss an action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Motions brought under Rule 12(b)(1) may present either a facial or factual challenge to the Court's subject matter jurisdiction. Gould Elecs., Inc. v. United States, 220 F.3d 169, 176 (3d Cir. 2000). In reviewing a facial challenge under Rule 12(b)(1), the standards associated with Rule 12(b)(6) are applicable. See id. In this regard, the Court must accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true, and the Court may consider only the complaint and documents referenced in or attached to the complaint. In a factual challenge tothe Court's subject matter jurisdiction, the Court's analysis is not limited to the allegations of the complaint, and the presumption of truthfulness does not attach to the allegations. Mortensen v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 549 F.2d 884, 891 (3d Cir. 1977). Instead, the Court may consider evidence outside the pleadings, including affidavits, depositions, and testimony, to resolve any factual issues bearing on jurisdiction. Gotha v. United States, 115 F.3d 176, 179 (3d Cir. 1997).

Once the Court's subject matter jurisdiction over a complaint is challenged, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. Mortensen, 549 F.2d at 891. If a dispute of material fact exists, "the [C]ourt must conduct a plenary hearing on the contested issues prior to determining jurisdiction." McCann v. Newman Irrevocable Tr., 458 F.3d 281, 290 (3d Cir. 2006); see also Berardi v. Swanson Mem'l Lodge No. 48, 920 F.2d 198, 200 (3d Cir. 1990) (stating that a district court must ensure that a plaintiff has "had an opportunity to present facts by affidavit or by deposition, or in an evidentiary hearing," to support his claim of jurisdiction (citation omitted)).

B. Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

Federal notice and pleading rules require the complaint to provide the defendant notice of the claim and the grounds upon which it rests. Phillips v. Cty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 232 (3d Cir. 2008). The plaintiff must present facts that, accepted as true, demonstrate a plausible right to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Although Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires "only a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," a complaint may nevertheless be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for its "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). When ruling on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court accepts as true all factual allegations in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from them, viewedin the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009); In re Ins. Brokerage Antitrust Litig., 618 F.3d 300, 314 (3d Cir. 2010). To prevent dismissal, all civil complaints must set out "sufficient factual matter" to show that their claims are facially plausible. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009). The plausibility standard requires more than a mere possibility that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct: "[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the [C]ourt to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged - but it has not 'show[n]' - 'that the pleader is entitled to relief.'" Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)).

Accordingly, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has identified the following steps that a district court must take when reviewing a 12(b)(6) motion: (1) identify the elements that a plaintiff must plead to state a claim; (2) identify any conclusory allegations contained in the complaint that are "not entitled" to the assumption of truth; and (3) determine whether any "well-pleaded factual allegations" contained in the complaint "plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief." See Santiago v. Warminster Twp., 629 F.3d 121, 130 (3d Cir. 2010) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). The Third Circuit has specified that in ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, "a court must consider only the complaint, exhibits attached to the complaint, matters of public record, as well as undisputedly authentic documents if the complainant's claims are based upon these documents." Mayer v. Belichick, 605 F.3d 223, 230 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir. 1993)).

In the context of pro se prisoner litigation, the Court must be mindful that a document filed pro se is "to be liberally construed." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). A pro secomplaint, "however inartfully pleaded," must be held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers" and can be dismissed for failure to state a claim only if it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972).

C. Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) provides for the entry of summary judgment "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). "[T]his standard provides that the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986).

A disputed fact is "material" if proof of its existence or nonexistence would affect the outcome of the case under applicable substantive law. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248; Gray v. York Newspapers, Inc., 957 F.2d 1070, 1078 (3d Cir. 1992). An issue of material fact is "genuine" if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 257; Brenner v. Local 514, United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., 927 F.2d 1283, 1287-88 (3d Cir. 1991).

When determining whether there is a genuine issue of material fact, the Court must view the facts and all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Moore v. Tartler, 986 F.2d 682 (3d Cir. 1993); Clement v. Consol. Rail Corp., 963 F.2d 599, 600 (3d Cir. 1992); White v. Westinghouse Elec. Co., 862 F.2d 56, 59 (3d Cir. 1988). In order to avoid summary judgment, however, the nonmoving party may not rest on the unsubstantiated allegations of his or her pleadings. When the party seeking summary judgment satisfies its burden under Rule 56of identifying evidence that demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, the nonmoving party is required by Rule 56 to go beyond the pleadings with affidavits, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or the like in order to demonstrate specific material facts that give rise to...